4.3.1 Record Aggregates
[In a
record_aggregate,
a value is specified for each component of the record or record extension
value, using either a named or a positional association.]
Syntax
{named component
association} A
record_component_association
is a
named component association if it has a
component_choice_list;
{positional component association}
otherwise, it is a
positional component association.
Any positional component associations shall precede any named component
associations. If there is a named association with a
component_choice_list
of
others, it shall come last.
Discussion: These rules were implied
by the BNF in an early version of the RM9X, but it made the grammar harder
to read, and was inconsistent with how we handle discriminant constraints.
Note that for array aggregates we still express some of the rules in
the grammar, but array aggregates are significantly different because
an array aggregate is either all positional (with a possible others
at the end), or all named.
Name Resolution Rules
{
AI95-00287-01}
{expected type (record_aggregate)
[partial]} The expected type for a
record_aggregate
shall be a single record type or record extension.
Ramification: For the association list
of a
record_aggregate,
“needed components” includes every component of the composite
value, but does not include those in unchosen
variants
(see AI83-309). If there are
variants,
then the value specified for the discriminant that governs them determines
which
variant
is chosen, and hence which components are needed.
If an extension defines a new
known_discriminant_part,
then all of its discriminants are needed in the component association
list of an extension aggregate for that type, even if the discriminants
have the same names and types as discriminants of the type of the ancestor
expression. This is necessary to ensure that the positions in the
record_component_association_list
are well defined, and that discriminants that govern
variant_parts
can be given by static expressions.
{expected
type (record_component_association expression) [partial]}
The expected type for the
expression
of a
record_component_association
is the type of the
associated component(s);
{associated
components (of a record_component_association)} the
associated component(s) are as follows:
For a positional association, the component [(including
possibly a discriminant)] in the corresponding relative position (in
the declarative region of the type), counting only the needed components;
Ramification: This means that for an
association list of an
extension_aggregate,
only noninherited components are counted to determine the position.
For a named association with one or more
component_selector_names,
the named component(s);
For a named association with the reserved word
others, all needed components that are not associated with some
previous association.
Legality Rules
If the type of a
record_aggregate
is a record extension, then it shall be a descendant of a record type,
through one or more record extensions (and no private extensions).
Ramification: For example, "(
null
record)" is a
record_aggregate
for a null record type. Similarly, "(T'(A)
with null record)"
is an
extension_aggregate
for a type defined as a null record extension of T.
Ramification: {
AI95-00287-01}
These rules apply to an association with an
others choice with
an expression. An
others choice with a <> can match zero
components or several components with different types..
Reason: {
AI95-00287-01}
Without these rules, there would be no way to know what was the expected
type for the
expression
of the association. Note that some of the rules do not apply to <>
associations, as we do not need to resolve anything. We allow
others
=> <> to match no components as this is similar to array aggregates.
That means that (
others => <>) always represents a default-initialized
record or array value.
Discussion: AI83-00244 also requires
that the
expression
shall be legal for each associated component. This is because even though
two components have the same type, they might have different subtypes.
Therefore, the legality of the
expression,
particularly if it is an array aggregate, might differ depending on the
associated component's subtype. However, we have relaxed the rules on
array aggregates slightly for Ada 95, so the staticness of an applicable
index constraint has no effect on the legality of the array aggregate
to which it applies. See
4.3.3. This was
the only case (that we know of) where a subtype provided by context affected
the legality of an
expression.
Ramification: The rule that requires
at least one associated component for each
record_component_association
implies that there can be no extra associations for components that don't
exist in the composite value, or that are already determined by the ancestor
expression or subtype of an
extension_aggregate.
The second part of the first sentence ensures
that no needed components are left out, nor specified twice.
If the components of a
variant_part
are needed, then the value of a discriminant that governs the
variant_part
shall be given by a static expression.
Ramification: This expression might either
be given within the aggregate itself, or in a constraint on the parent
subtype in a
derived_type_definition
for some ancestor of the type of the aggregate.
Reason: A discriminant must always have
a defined value, but <> means uninitialized for a discrete type
unless the component has a default value.
Dynamic Semantics
{evaluation (record_component_association_list)
[partial]} For the evaluation of a
record_component_association_list,
any per-object constraints (see
3.8) for components
specified in the association list are elaborated and any
expressions
are evaluated and converted to the subtype of the associated component.
{implicit subtype conversion (expressions
in aggregate) [partial]} Any constraint
elaborations and
expression
evaluations (and conversions) occur in an arbitrary order, except that
the
expression
for a discriminant is evaluated (and converted) prior to the elaboration
of any per-object constraint that depends on it, which in turn occurs
prior to the evaluation and conversion of the
expression
for the component with the per-object constraint.
Ramification: The conversion in the first
rule might raise Constraint_Error.
Discussion: This check in the first rule
presumably happened as part of the dependent compatibility check in Ada
83.
Examples
Example of a record
aggregate with positional associations:
(4, July, 1776) --
see 3.8
Examples of record
aggregates with named associations:
(Day => 4, Month => July, Year => 1776)
(Month => July, Day => 4, Year => 1776)
(Disk, Closed, Track => 5, Cylinder => 12) --
see 3.8.1
(Unit => Disk, Status => Closed, Cylinder => 9, Track => 1)
{
AI95-00287-01}
Examples of component associations with several choices:
(Value => 0, Succ|Pred =>
new Cell'(0,
null,
null)) --
see 3.10.1
-- The allocator is evaluated twice: Succ and Pred designate different cells
(Value => 0, Succ|Pred => <>) --
see 3.10.1
-- Succ and Pred will be set to null
Examples of record
aggregates for tagged types (see 3.9 and 3.9.1):
Expression'(null record)
Literal'(Value => 0.0)
Painted_Point'(0.0, Pi/2.0, Paint => Red)
Extensions to Ada 83
{
extensions to Ada 83}
Null
record aggregates may now be specified, via "(
null record)".
However, this syntax is more useful for null record extensions in extension
aggregates.
Wording Changes from Ada 83
Various AIs have been incorporated (AI83-00189,
AI83-00244, and AI83-00309). In particular, Ada 83 did not explicitly
disallow extra values in a record aggregate. Now we do.
Extensions to Ada 95
Wording Changes from Ada 95